Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Subramonium Prasad, J.
Keshav Kumar Agarwal - Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation - Respondent
Crl.M.C. 4480 of 2015
Decided On : 23-02-2021
The court held that once a judgment is signed, it cannot be altered except to correct clerical errors, reinforced by Section 362 of the Cr.P.C.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 362 - Modification of judgment - The court addressed the appropriateness of modifying an earlier order concerning the provision of videographed evidence to the accused, asserting that once a judgment is delivered, it cannot be altered or reviewed unless constituting a clerical error - The CBI's request was dismissed as the order effectively sought to review the prior judgment, which is barred under Section 362. (Paras 9, 10, 14)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Inherent powers of the Court - It was reiterated that inherent powers cannot be exercised to circumvent explicit statutory prohibitions, particularly regarding reviews. (Paras 12, 14)
Facts of the case:
The CBI moved to modify a previous order mandating the supply of a videography CD from an inspection, which had been central to the original judgment. The CBI contended it lacked custody of the CD and sought to alter the judgment that required its provision to the accused.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the proceedings sought to modify were, in effect, a review, explicitly prohibited by Section 362 of the Cr.PC.
Issues: The main issues were the court's authority under Section 362 and whether the CBI could change the order mandating document supply.
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that Section 362 prohibits alterations of judgments barring clerical errors, and inherent powers cannot be utilized to negate express statutory bars.
Result: Application dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of modification application and prior orders. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. issues regarding the non-supply of video evidence. (Para 3 , 8) |
| 3. arguments concerning familiarity with videography evidence. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. court's interpretation of section 362 cr.p.c. (Para 9 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. dismissing the modification application. (Para 14 , 15) |
JUDGMENT
Subramonium Prasad, J.
CRL.M.A. 17559/2020
1. This is an application filed on behalf of the respondent/CBI under Section 482 Cr.P.C for modification of the order dated 29.07.2019 passed by this Court in CRL.M.C. 4480/2015.
2. This Court by order dated 29.07.2019 disposed of CRL.M.C.Nos. 4443/2015, 4480/2015 & 688/2017 and CRL. REV. P. No.25/2016. CRL.M.C.Nos. 4443/2015, 4480/2015 & 688/2017 have been filed by the accused challenging the order dated 07.10.2015 wherein the learned Additional Session Judge Special Judge CBI-01, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi has framed charges against the accused under Sections 120B/420/468/471 IPC read with Section 13 (2) & 13(l)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The CBI filed CRL. REV. P. No.25/2016 challenging the same order discharging two accused in the case. This case arises out of the orders granting permission to Rohilkhand Medical College and Hospital, Bareilly run by the Rohilkhand Educational Charitable Trust, Bareilly for extension of renewal of permission for admission of 3rd batch of MBBS students for the academic year 2008-09. This Court vide order dated 29.07.2019 found that both the parties i.e. the CBI and the accused were not satisfied with the order dated 07.10.2015 wherein charges have been framed and a few accused have been discharged. During the course of the arguments the counsels for both sides pointed out that an inspection which had been conducted by the MCI had been videographed and the CD of the videography has not been supplied to the petitioners. Paragraph No.37, 38, 39 of the judgment dated 29.07.2019 reads as under:
"37. During the course of the arguments, Learned counsels has pointed out that the inspection team has carried out videography and the said set of videography is not supplied to the Petitioners/Accused persons and the factum of videography is not disputed in the statement of the witness. The CBI also has not disputed carrying out the videography during the inspection. However, it is submitted that it has not been made part of the chargsheet. The said videography is a material evidence to reach to the conclusion, thus, the CD of the videography be supplied to the petitioners to show innocence on their part.
38. The perusal of the record shows that the videography was asked to be carried out in Letter from ASG Gopal Subramanium to Anbumani Ramadoss dated 13.10.2008 which is at Page 235 (Annexure- P12) of the petition No. CRL. M.C 4443/2015. Relevant extract of the Letter is reproduced below:
" ...I had pointed out that there is a serious concern of lack of transparency in the grant of recommendations by the Medical Council of India as well as the permissions granted by the Central Government in the setting up of medical colleges. I had expressed my very deep concern that standards in private medical colleges have to be firmly in order list there be a serious threat to the lives of citizens who would require treatment at the hands of doctors. In my view, the public good and public health is the foremost and primary as well as overriding consideration. In my view, it is the Medical council of India and the Central Government who are jointly responsible for the quality of medical education and consequent public health. However, I may make it clear that while there may be contest with reference to areas while there may be contest with reference to areas where one should have supremacy over the other, I am not persuaded to advise that the Central Government should reiterate the permission granted I favour of Ms Index Medical college, Indore as well as Rohilkhand Medical College, Up
